Yeah I have a feeling this CPU is just going to be fodder and not sell much. For a quad it's not that as powerful as it could be and there are better quad-cores on the market. Intel is just wasting their time and money with the 970 IMO.

I think Intel could very well delay sandy bridge towards the middle of next year or at least Q2. They have already said that although sandy bridge will be ready early, but are looking to ensure nehalem gets a sufficient life cycle. This six core will be here really to go head to head with Thuban, Intel just want bullet point parity. Considering that AMD are still behind and still will be going into 2011, then i can see intel holding off on sandy bridge much like they did with lynnfield, which was delayed from july to september.

As market leaders, intel currently basically pick and choose when they want to unleash a new architecture. They will choose when to jump, not being pushed by AMD

No it won't. AMD is way behind Intel clock for clock ( my how the tables have turned ) Thuban will be lucky to compete with i7 on real world performance. By the time games and common apps make good use of 6 core cpu's, there will be much faster and more advanced cpus out.

@vulcanproject

For someone with an Intel 'avatar' you seem to be very misinformed, Intel will be the first to market with a 6-core, not only that; but the first 32nm, which is why Thuban makes even less sense. AMD is releasing a 3.6ghz phenom ( which is the same chip as the 3.2/3.4 ) and a much slower 6-core, factor in the slower clock for clock performance and the AMD chip serves no purpose.

You also realise that AMD has had 6 core server CPUs for at least 6 months. AMD is not bringing anything new.

I think everyone is well aware how much faster Intel is clock for clock. Which is why AMD are cheaper. Which is why Thuban is almost certain to retail cheaper, and be a useful advancement for AMD's server plans. But you missed how i actually explained that sentence. Intel will not want AMD to flounce around talking about having the only reasonable six core retail processor, world first all that sort of claim. etc etc. This is a cold war, and in any cold war, how you look is as important as what you actually do lol

Intel want that bullet point, spreadsheet, powerpoint presentation parity, Look! we have six cores that arent all extreme, one off samples. We can do a range of six cores too etc It can be as shallow as that. This does apply to AMD too you know- neither of these corporations want to be missing a bullet point like these six cores on their retail maps.

The actual usefulness of any six core processor right now i will admit for the average consumer is questionable at best. I feel that having a quad core has only been justifiable since the end of 2008 or so. But it will take a bunch of retail six core processors to start to convince people that yes, again this advancement is necessary and stump up the cash.

"Multithreaded Rendering is a feature which allows DirectX to be processed via multiple CPU threads. This means that a dual-, triple- or quad-core CPU can have a higher utilization across all cores than DirectX APIs in the past. Historically the OS would load up a single core for commands to the GPU, in essence creating an overload on the first core and under utilizing the additional cores. With only one core issuing commands to a GPU, we have seen CPUs hold back the potential performance of the GPU. With Multithreaded Rendering, DirectX will take better advantage of all the available cores. This should result in a better experience for the multi-core user because of a faster processing pipeline and increased scaling. "

Just laugh with me will you. Metalgearrising doesn't know that the 360 sports a three core CPU, so it's down three cores to begin with. It has six threads. Two per core. Less bits per cycle processing than just about any chip on the market and a FSB that allows 10.8 gbs input/output simultaneously.

What he's written is completely meaningless.

See. A smile makes it all better. ;) That kind of self pwnage (on MGR's part that is) is priceless.

"Clock speed is incomparable, the architecture of one CPU might mean that twice as much data is performed per cycle"

when referencing the "speed" & "capability" of PC's hardware, but when it is applied to how the PS3 is PROVEN to be the more powerful of ***CONSOLES*** it doesn't matter!? OR how "certain gamer types" always say it's "gimped"?!

Whatever. The FACT is that the PS3 has 4 times the internal bandwidth, twice the memory bandwidth and a more capable processor than the 360 which is no different from how "Intel CPUs do more per mhz than AMDs currently do"...and these are VERIFIABLE FACTS mind you ~ NOT conjecture or baseless claims as "certain gamer types" would like the "gullibles" to believe.

Oh and before someone starts with "b, bu, buh, BUT this is teh PC articlez" ~ how does it feel when some people have a habit of doing the same exact thing in 360/PS3 articles. LoL!

The amount of Tflops a chip can acheive is a calculation based on the specs, it is simply theoretical performance, and no chip ever reaches it's absolute peak, or usually anywhere near.

PC CPUs are more powerful than the PSU, the GPU elements of the cell will always make it do some things better because other cpus simply do not have that, but here's where it gets funny. The PS3 has a pathetic GPU and there are many many GPUS with much higher performance.

In the PC market integrated graphics processors are considered a joke. The fact that the ps3 is using one in tandem with a weak GPU simply means they can make up for some of the GPUs weaknesses, it does not make the PS3 powerful

If it did, you would have seen games that don't have low res textures, weak effects, low draw distances, linear gameplay, and all those other gimped features that are present in every console game.

Actually I understand and agree with what you are saying...up to a point. But it seems you don't want to grasp what I am truly saying.

The PS3 is the sum of it's parts not just each part dissected, so while yes the GPU is not the best nor the greatest the fact remains that when the PS3 is utilized properly maximizing it's TOTAL hardware it is clearly the better of the consoles.

I am not a dedicated console gamer, nor am I a dedicated PC gamer. I am just a gamer who can enjoy a range of games like Flashback, Metroid, Mass Effect, Mario Galaxy & Gran Turismo on up to PC titles like Tribes, CS & AvP through Crysis to name a few. Though I will honestly admit that it just so happens this generation I prefer the PS3 because of the recurring cost of PC gaming which has gotten out of hand financially as of late...especially in this economy.

No one is disagreeing with that. But you tried to say that the ps3 'had more bandwidth than a PC' which is not true, it doesn't even have more bandwidth than new CPU's the only benefit it has are the GPU elements, but the CPU elements are below par.

"but when it is applied to how the PS3 is PROVEN to be the more powerful of ***CONSOLES***"

I was referencing and COMPARING how the Intel VS AMD argument is very similar to the PS3 vs 360. Basically using your example to make an association to Consoles ~ Got me? It is a GIVEN the PC platform is by far more powerful but you totally missed the intricacy of my point.